Rutherford v Seymour Pierce Ltd

Rutherford v Seymour Pierce Ltd

There was no implied term excluding bonus entitlement for dismissed employees; Mr. Rutherford was eligible for consideration and, on a reasonable exercise of discretion, entitled to a bonus. SPL failed to exercise discretion or provide valid performance-related reasons for non-payment. The non-payment was irrational and perverse.

Parties
Claimant: Malcolm Rutherford; Defendant: Seymour Pierce Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Bonus Entitlement, Wrongful Dismissal, Discretionary Bonus, Indemnity Costs
Employment Law Contract Law Implied Terms Bonus Entitlement Wrongful Dismissal Discretionary Bonus Indemnity Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm Rutherford

Claimant

Seymour Pierce Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term excluded bonus entitlement for dismissed employees
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was eligible and entitled to a bonus
  3. 3 Whether the defendant exercised discretion reasonably

Ratio Decidendi

There was no implied term excluding bonus entitlement for dismissed employees; Mr. Rutherford was eligible for consideration and, on a reasonable exercise of discretion, entitled to a bonus. SPL failed to exercise discretion or provide valid performance-related reasons for non-payment. The non-payment was irrational and perverse.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • SPL to pay Mr. Rutherford £70,000 as bonus within 14 days
  • Interest at 4% over base on £70,000